Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 24STCV01725, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV01725 Hearing Date: December 6, 2024 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Franco, et. al.
vs. City of Los Angeles, et. al.,
Case No. 24STCV01725
Tentative Ruling
re: Defendant’s Motion for Stay of
Proceedings
The City of Los Angeles (Defendant)
moves to stay this action and continue the current trial date pending the
completion of the bankruptcy proceeding involving Andres Rodriguez Franco
(Plaintiff). The motion is granted.
“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay
proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg
v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) “In ruling on a motion for a stay order, the assigned
judge must determine whether the stay will promote the ends of justice,
considering the imminence of any trial or other proceeding that might
materially affect the status of the action to be stayed, and whether a final
judgment in that action would have a res judicata or collateral estoppel effect
with regard to any common issue of the included actions.” (Rules of Court, rule
3.515(f).)
A party seeking a continuance of
the date set for trial must make the request for a continuance by a noticed
motion or an ex parte application as soon as reasonably practical once the
necessity for the continuance is discovered.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(b).) The request for continuance may
be granted on an affirmative showing of good cause. (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) Grounds for continuance include “[a] party’s
excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material
evidence despite diligent efforts.” (Id., rule 3.1332(c)(6).)
Factors to be considered in
determining whether good cause exists include: the proximity of the trial date;
whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of
trial due to any party; the length of the continuance requested; the availability
of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or
application for a continuance; the prejudice that parties or witnesses will
suffer as a result of the continuance; whether trial counsel is engaged in
another trial; whether the interests of justice are best served by a
continuance; and any other fact or circumstance relevant to a fair
determination of the motion or application. (Id., rule 3.1332(d).)
“The filing of a petition for bankruptcy
operates as an automatic stay of the commencement or continuation of any action
against a bankrupt debtor or against the property of a bankrupt estate. 11
U.S.C. § 362(a). The automatic stay tolls ‘applicable nonbankruptcy law [that]
fixes a period for commencing or continuing a civil action in a court other
than a bankruptcy court on a claim against the debtor ...’ or against the
property of the debtor.” (U.S. v. Dos Cabezas Corp. (9th Cir. 1993) 995 F.2d 1486, 1491.) While the automatic stay does not generally extend to
parties other than the debtor, there is a narrow exception where the debtor is
an indispensable party to the litigation. (Cross v. Cooper (2011) 197
Cal.App.4th 357, 365 fn 2 [citing Matter of James Wilson Associates (7th
Cir. 1992) 965 F.2d 160, 170].)
Moving Defendant argues that this action
should be stayed pending completion of Plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceedings. The
motion is unopposed. Plaintiff’s action is for damages arising out of a
collision with a vehicle driven by an employee of Defendant. Defendant has
filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff seeking damages for the accident.
Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on February 9, 2024. (Valadez Decl. ¶
4, Ex. B.) Should the jury find in Defendant’s favor in the present case, it is
uncertain whether Defendant could collect from Plaintiff without knowing the
result of the bankruptcy proceeding. Defendant is at risk of incurring
litigation costs without any opportunity for compensation upon victory.
Accordingly, the Court finds it in the interests of justice to stay the present
proceedings and vacate the current trial date.